Security is of great concern in our everyday life. More and more work places are providing secure work environments using visual monitoring and by the presence of security personnel. The unwanted presence of a suspicious individual in the work place or public places of security presents a risk to the safety of the public.
In the case of aircraft security, a highjacker presents a significant risk to the passengers and crew. In these cases, terrorists and criminals can take hostages and create very difficult security situations.
Numerous solutions have been put forward to address the problem of apprehending suspects, in a highjack situation for example. Current agencies employ a guard or Marshall present in every flight. However, the major drawback of having guards on aircrafts is the risk in enforcing their authority in a security breach situation through firearms. The risk of damage to the fuselage is significant as rapid depressurisation may occur. The risk to the safety of passengers is also very high.
A further problem is the guards are more than likely to be outnumbered and the possibility of them being killed as the first act by highjackers is high. Furthermore, the weapons used by the guards may become inadvertently available to the highjackers.
Another known system of diffusing a security breach is the injection of sleeping gas into the passenger compartment of an aircraft. The effect of the sleeping gas is that all the passengers and quite possibly the crew as well are immobilised. A further drawback is highjackers are likely to have gas masks in anticipation of such security measures.
In other situations requiring the apprehension of suspects, security dogs may be used. U.S. Pat. No. 5,588,398 describes a remotely controlled dog muzzle. A dog muzzle apparatus is attached to a dog having a stun gun fitted with the muzzle. The stun gun is used with police dogs for apprehending and subduing suspects and is operated remotely by authorised personnel. The dog having the muzzle comes in contact with the suspect to immobilise the suspect by the electric charge in the stun gun.
Although the above system removes the risk of injury to the authorised personnel by the remote operation of the stun gun, the police dog, however, must come in contact with the suspect. There is a substantial risk, the suspect may injure and incapacitate the dog through use of firearms or other weapons. The muzzle with the stun gun is then ineffective.
The use of security dogs having stun guns attached to them, in the workplace or aircraft, is impractical and unsafe.